Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deleting and destroying finished movies

rogerebert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#251

Post by krisoft »

hyperhello wrote: post #166
pradn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does someone have to demarcate exactly where "the line" is to make a judgement on this situation? You can simply ask yourself "do I want to live in a world where this happens" - and any decent person would say "no". The presence of a "slippery slope" is not enough to prevent going down a path, even somewhat. A film takes hundreds of people to create - how does it feel for them to just have years of their lives fa…

Many people believe that banning disliked things is not what laws are for. If it was you’d see the powerful banning everything they didn’t like, making the law tyranny, and the powerless banning everything they didn’t like, and you get the French Revolution.

> it was you’d see the powerful banning everything they didn’t like

As far as I can see they are a good way to there, so yes? To the extent possible the powerfull is banning or attempting to ban everythjng they don’t like.

> the powerless banning everything they didn’t like

If the powerless bans everything they didn’t like then they are not powerless. That is the definition of power.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#252

Post by krisoft »

troupo wrote: post #230
nox101 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should this apply to everything? Someone buys a cupcake. Instead of eating it they throw it away. Is the person that made the cupcake owed something more than the $ they already got for it because the cupcake was not eaten and so their time fell into the void? How about all the people that built a house or car that a movie production destroys? (less often now that everything is CGI). Also, if the movie sucks, it ofte…

> Someone buys a cupcake. In this case someone made a cupcake. Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense > Also, if the movie sucks, it often reflects badly on all of those people. They try to get work on a new movie, people look at the old movie, see it sucks, don't hire them. So why are so many bad movies released then?

> Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense

But isn’t that thing actually common practice? If a bakery accidentaly ruins a batch of cupcakes they toss them to the bin. And of course the ingredients and labour involved in those cupcakes will count as an expense. They had costs (some flour, some eggs, some employee time) and they had zero income from those burnt cupcakes (or even worse, costs associated with cleanup and disposal!).

When you put it this way it sounds quite ordinary. Do you think I should take away some different message from your analogy?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#253

Post by aniforprez »

gruez wrote: post #68
exe34 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I burn down my house, I lose money. Should I be able to claim insurance on that?

If your insurance policy covers that (unlikely because of this exact situation), then sure.

No insurance company in the world will pay out insurance if you commit arson against your own house because that's stupid. Same thing should apply here. Destroying a film to get a tax break at the very least should incur penalties

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#254

Post by AnarchismIsCool »

I think the issue here isn't that they are deleting the movie, it's that they're deleting other people's work.

Remember, a corporation is a group of people joining together to create something they couldn't individually. Yes, there's a bunch of contract law we pile on top of that to make the concept borderline worthless, but bear with me.

If the employees created the movie, and the broader corporation declares it a failure and attempts to write it off, the people who created it should then be given the copyright or the copyright should be revoked such that those individual artists can do with it as they please.

Anything else is just someone coming over and stomping on your sandcastle because employee contract law is insane.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#255

Post by cryptonym »

Veserv wrote: post #202
AlbertCory wrote: post #22

Where do you draw the line? If an artist pays a model and paints her, is the artist to be prohibited from destroying the painting because it sucks, and because the model wants credit? What about a music producer who pays a studio band to record a song that turns out to be terrible -- is the producer prohibited from deleting it? It's the tax write off for destruction that's fucked up, as @cnees says. Failures are part…

That is easy. If they claim the contract-encumbered work is worth 0 dollars for tax reasons, then anybody (who does not intend to commit breach of contract) should be allowed to buy the fully encumbered work for 0 dollars and the original owner can take the loss/write-off. That should get like the central 90% of cases. Probably need some fine-tuning to get the rest and reduce opportunities for abuse (maybe some minim…

I create multiple movies, one works well and I think to myself I pay too much taxes this year. I sell the next one for 0 dollars to my cousin so I can write it off immediately. If the movie works, money stays in the family, if it doesn't I already got deductions and it was a no-op for my cousin.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#256

Post by pmontra »

Companies invest money to create products. Some turn into a profit, some don't, some don't even make it to the market. At the end of the year they sum revenues and expenses and either a profit or a loss. If a movie makes zero money it's only an expense and that already reduces the taxes on the revenues. SO why do studios have that tax write-off on top of normal tax on the revenues - expenses figure?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#257

Post by cryptonym »

smarx007 wrote: post #99
AlbertCory wrote: post #22

Where do you draw the line? If an artist pays a model and paints her, is the artist to be prohibited from destroying the painting because it sucks, and because the model wants credit? What about a music producer who pays a studio band to record a song that turns out to be terrible -- is the producer prohibited from deleting it? It's the tax write off for destruction that's fucked up, as @cnees says. Failures are part…

At claiming a tax break. A tax write off is intended to help you when you suffer a loss. In this case, a company does not suffer a loss but inflicts it on itself by destroying its asset without even trying to liqudate it properly.

Change the rule so destroying in purpose no longer qualify for tax break and someone will accidentally the only hard drive.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#258

Post by bradley13 »

This...doesn't make sense? The expenses of producing the movie can already be offset against their profits. That's how business works: you only pay taxes on money you earn after expenses.

So how, exactly, do they get an additional write-off for destroying the film? If you deliberately destroy something of value, why should you get to write that off your taxes? Consider: They certainly own a lot of computers. If the CEO walks through the building smashing all the computers with a sledgehammer, the IRS is not going to let them write off the destruction. That would be stupid.

So why can they do this with a movie?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#259

Post by bluesign »

bradley13 wrote: post #258

This...doesn't make sense? The expenses of producing the movie can already be offset against their profits. That's how business works: you only pay taxes on money you earn after expenses. So how, exactly, do they get an additional write-off for destroying the film? If you deliberately destroy something of value, why should you get to write that off your taxes? Consider: They certainly own a lot of computers. If the C…

Probably there are some costs involved after publishing the movie. Some minimum guarantee royalty commitment to some people involved, like actors etc.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#260

Post by troupo »

krisoft wrote: post #252
troupo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone buys a cupcake. In this case someone made a cupcake. Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense > Also, if the movie sucks, it often reflects badly on all of those people. They try to get work on a new movie, people look at the old movie, see it sucks, don't hire them. So why are so many bad movies released then?

> Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense But isn’t that thing actually common practice? If a bakery accidentaly ruins a batch of cupcakes they toss them to the bin. And of course the ingredients and labour involved in those cupcakes will count as an expense. They had costs (some flour, some eggs, some employee time) and they had zero income fro…

That's why analogies are always wrong :)
Post reply on HN